I have not yet had to learn evolution in Biology 1. But I do not wish to learn it in my podunk school. However, I think that it has a place in our schools so we can better understand it. I am just saying that the Theory of Creation should be taught instead of the Hypothesis of Evolution...
38 comments
I'm thinking it's a troll.
LatinMan! seems to understand the difference between a theory and hypothesis in the scientific sense, but then uses the terms backwards.
There is no "theory of creation". Creationism is just "the Bible said it, I believe it, that settles it" - any facts that disagree with me are wrong and la la la la - I'm not listening to you ...". Evolution is wrong because maybe the speed of light changed, and maybe radioactive decay rates have changed, and maybe the Grand Canyon was carved out in a year by the Flood, and therefore, the Bible is automatically right because you can't prove my harebrained alternative is wrong.
got that backwards there, Creation is a hypothesis, Evolution is a theory
EDIT
Actually, I think he is a troll too, for the reasons above.
No, Creation is an unproven, basically unproveable hypothesis, whereas lots of evidence points to evolution, so it's a theory.
You're all backwards.
I love how you just ruined your whole argument. "We want them to be taught as equal THEORIES...but, for the record, evolution is a HYPOTHESIS...if it's even that...it's really more like...Satan's tool."
And I simply hope that will never happen, because it's just Christian propaganda in disguise. Sure, they make the argument that it doesn't descriminate against religions, but it's clearly a single, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God who creates all the universe in an extremely short amount of time according to some "intelligent plan" that has absolutely no clarity at all. That doesn't narrow it down at all.
If you're not willing to learn it, then you have no opinion on it. STFU.
I have two questions.
1. If Creationism is true, why are people taller now than they were thousands of years ago?
2. Why haven't scientists found God's tag in the genetic code of his 'creation'?
I mean, 'Big G WOZ 'ere' is pretty hard to miss.
I think creationists should be very, very careful what they wish for. Because if evolution and creationism are ever placed side by side and examined by the same standard, creationism really will come off very badly.
The only reason Kent Hovind, Ken Ham etc, get away with lying to people's faces is because 90% of the material in their talks is built around constructing strawman arguments and parroting the same old long-disproven "weaknesses" in the ToE. Take that slander and spin away, and what do you get? The word "Goddidit". Which is what all this shouting and noise-making is actually designed to hide- the fact that creationists have nothing in the way of actual science to weigh against evolution.
I am sure creation can find a place in schools. Right next to the other myths like Hercules, Atlas, Odin, etc.
way to go LatinMan! - knowing the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis" for scientific discussion.
Now all you have to do is see that a hypothesis needs evidence to become a theory. The ToE has a mass of evidence that appears to substantiate it. The creation story merely has an assertion based on faith - the faith engendered by the writings of 3000 year ago goat herders stealing creation myths from their betters. But a good try to get out of having to learn the complexities of evolution rather than just saying "goddidit"
Theory - A plausible explanation for the observations at hand.
Hypothesis - A statement to be experimentally verified.
You fail, but thank you for playing.
Reecey-Boy wrote:
"If Creationism is true, why are people taller now than they were thousands of years ago?" Actually, that has nothing to do with any genetic changes that have occurred in the human population. That's a matter of having access to a better diet during the growth years.
The most recent major genetic shift in the human population has been the evolution of lactose tolerance in adults.
Homo Latinus, ita vero! Ideo tu Latine loquerisne?
Ita, dic mihi quae significat Anglice vel Latine 'podunk'. Verbum est quem nescio, et significatio eius non intellego.
[Latin Man indeed! So you speak Latin?
Well then, tell me what 'podunk' means either in Latin of in English. It's a word I do not know and its meaning escapes me.]
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
